Ratanlal Ladsaria Agarwal vs Greater Hyderabad Municipal ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3832 Tel

    THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA
                                                AND
            THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY

                                  W.A.No.469 of 2019

JUDGMENT:         (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



         The present writ appeal is arising out of the order dated

25.03.2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.6081 of

2019.

         The undisputed facts of the case reveal that one Mr. Ratanlal

Ladsaria Agarwal has filed the writ petition against Mr. Bimal

Kishore Sanghi and Mr. Brij Kishore Sanghi, respondent Nos.4 and

5 in the writ petition, stating that he had submitted a

representation in respect of illegal construction and the authorities

were not taking action in the matter.

The order of the learned Single Judge reveals that

respondent Nos.4 and 5 were earlier tenants of the appellant/writ

petitioner, they are doing business in the same locality and in

those circumstances, keeping in view the backdrop of the

relationship, the learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ

petition.

The order passed by the learned Single Judge reads as

under:-

"The Writ Petition is filed alleging that Respondents 4 and 5 are making illegal constructions. It is asserted, the petitioner submitted the representation dated 11.03.2019 to the respondent authorities, but no action is taken thereon.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation.

When queried what is the locus of the petitioner to file the Writ Petition, the learned counsel submits that his client was previously tenant of Respondents 4 and 5. As on date, it appears, the petitioner does not have any relation with Respondents 4 and

5. The petitioner, either to wreak vengeance against Respondents 4 and 5 or to coerce them to have some wrongful gain, appeared to have filed this Writ Petition. The only assertion of the petitioner is that he is also doing business in the same locality. Mere doing business in the same locality, by itself, does not give any right to the petitioner to file a Writ Petition raising objection with respect to the constructions allegedly made by Respondents 4 and 5. He did not make any attempt to verify, by seeking information, from the revenue authorities whether permission has been sought by Respondents 4 and 5 before proceeding with the construction.

As the Writ Petition appears to have filed only to wreak vengeance against Respondents 4 and 5 or for any other motive, this Court is not inclined to entertain the same and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

The miscellaneous Applications, if any pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed."

In the considered opinion of this court, the order passed by

the learned Single Judge does not warrant any interference.

However, the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Act

provides for monitoring of illegal constructions and the appellant

shall be free to take appropriate recourse to the remedies available

under the Act.

The writ appeal is dismissed.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

___________________________ SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA, CJ

___________________________ A.RAJASHEKER REDDY, J 29.11.2021 JSU